Drug Laws, Obamacare, & Prescription Drug Abuse: What You’re Not Being Told, by Alice Salles

STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC

US health care law is creating an incentive for physicians to prescribe drugs, particulary opiates, that are often abused. From Alice Salles at theantimedia.org:

(ANTIMEDIA) A report released recently by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) shows one in every 20 Americans misused prescription painkillers last year. This discovery is particularly relevant because the drug war, combined with changes to U.S. health care law, may have helped exacerbate the so-called opioid epidemic.

In 2015, an estimated 119 million Americans older than 12 used prescription psychotherapeutic drugs — a term used in the SAMHSA report to refer to “pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives,” though pain relievers were the most commonly used.

Researchers used that estimate, along with the data gathered from 68,000 surveys to produce the report. According to the report, “[a]ll estimates (e.g., percentages and numbers) presented in the report are derived from NSDUH [National Survey…

View original post 453 more words

Update: Universal Background Check for Gun Owners will be Integrated into Obamacare

The Firewall

The path of least resistance in implementing a universal background check would be to piggy-back on existing legislation: The Affordable Care Act.

HIPPA privacy laws, however make this problematic. No worry, though. the obvious solution for this is to break laws through executive order.

At this moment, the Obama administration is working with Health and Human Services Department to circumvent existing privacy laws:

The Health and Human Services Department will issue a formal proposal on Friday to make sure one of its privacy laws does not prevent states from reporting information to the background check system.

Congress do not seem to be aware that the Obama Administration is working to implement what is effectively a  national gun registration database through Obamacare.

Sen. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, said Sunday that universal background checks on all gun sales are “a bridge too far for most of us” as Democrats try to cobble together a…

View original post 24 more words

[Obama-appointee] Judge Audrey Fleissig overturns Mo. law on birth control coverage | AP

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has struck down a Missouri law exempting moral objectors from mandatory birth control coverage because it conflicts with an insurance requirement under President Barrack Obama’s health care law.

click for bio

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Audrey Fleissig cites a provision in the U.S. Constitution declaring that federal laws take precedence over contradictory state laws. But Fleissig emphasized that she was taking no position on the merits of the Obama administration policy, which requires insurers to cover contraception at no additional cost to women.

Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster did not say on Monday whether he would appeal the ruling, which was dated Thursday but not publicized.

The anti-abortion group Campaign Life Missouri distributed an email Monday denouncing the ruling as “a radical departure from America’s tradition of religious freedom” and imploring people to contact Koster’s office in support of an appeal. Some backers of Missouri’s law said the court ruling could result in churches and other religious organizations having to accept insurance policies that include contraception coverage.

“Atlas Shrugged” | Hal Lindsey Report for 11/16/2012

click here to jump to video at Hal Lindsey’s site

Who’s most to blame for the coming fiscal collapse of America? | HotAir

With Senate Majority Leader Reid’s (D-NV) decision on Tuesday to not pass a budget for the third straight fiscal year, the Washington game of fiscal chicken–this time over $19 billion–is in full swing once again. To provide perspective, this is less than one-half of one-percent of the 2012 budget and less than 1.5% of this year’s expected deficit. It’s also about one-eighth of one percent of our national debt.

While politicians bicker, Rome burns and the budget grows. While some pundits blame Obama, and others blame Bush, and still others blame everyone in the Beltway, the fact is neither president or party has instituted the wisest fiscal policy. Still, the increase in spending under both has not been driven principally by new spending initiatives. It has instead been driven by the increasing number of retirees and resulting growth of social spending and especially Social Security and Medicare.

Losing obamacare while preserving the Constitution | Reason

The ‘New Gestapo’? Maine Gov. Blasts Massive Expansion of IRS Agents | Yahoo! News

Maine Governor Paul LePage

“…This tax will add to the $500 billion in tax increases that are already in Obamacare. Now that Congress can use the taxation power of the federal government to compel behavior or lack thereof, what’s next? More taxes if we don’t drive Toyota Priuses or if we eat too much junk food or maybe even pea soup?

This decision has made America less free. ‘We The People’ have been told there is no choice. You must buy health insurance or pay the new Gestapo – the I.R.S.

Even more disheartening is that reviving the American dream just became nearly impossible to do. We are now a nation in which supports dependency rather than independence. Instead of encouraging self-reliance we are encouraging people to rely on the government...”  via Yahoo! News.

Roberts’ Rules of Meddling | Reason.com

click to jump to Reason.com

Last week supporters and opponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act anxiously awaited the Supreme Court’s ruling on the law’s individual health insurance mandate. Imagine their surprise when the Court announced, in a majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, that there is no individual health insurance mandate.

Rather than a “penalty” imposed on anyone who “fails to comply” with the “requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage,” which is how the law itself describes the policy, Roberts perceived a “tax” that hinges on whether one follows the government’s totally nonmandatory guidelines regarding health insurance. This implausible relabeling of reality was Roberts’ desperate attempt to uphold the provision formerly known as a mandate without endorsing a boundless view of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. Instead he endorsed a boundless view of Congress’ tax power that could prove even more dangerous to liberty… via Reason.com.

SCOTUS Ruling Means Bigger, More Intrusive IRS | Fox Business

IRS officials on background tell FOX Business the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on health reform gives the IRS even more powers than previously understood.  The IRS now gets to know about a small business’s entire payroll, the level of their insurance coverage — and it gets to know the income of not just the primary breadwinner in your house, but your entire family’s income, in order to assess/collect the mandated tax.

Plus, it gets to share your personal info with all sorts of government agencies, insurance companies and employers.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. “We expect even more lien and levy powers,” an IRS official says. Even the Taxpayer Advocate is deeply concerned.

Judicial Watch Statement on Supreme Court Obamacare Decision

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement today regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare:

This Supreme Court majority rewrote Obamacare and then upheld its constitutionality. This decision is monstrous and upends the constitutional limits on federal power. That the Chief Justice would join the Court’s liberal block to legislate from the bench is shocking. Instead of calling the law Obamacare, we can fairly call it “Robertscare.”

Justice Kagan’s controversial decision to participate in this case despite unanswered questions about her role in defending Obamacare while working in the Obama administration also taints the High Court’s decision.

The Court’s decision will contribute to the public’s concern that our government is out of control and acting without constitutional authority. The rule of law suffered a stinging blow today.

On February 13, 2012, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae brief with the High Court challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare, specifically the “individual mandate.” In its brief Judicial Watch maintained that the “individual mandate” provision of Obamacare, which requires every American citizen to purchase health care insurance or pay a penalty, is unconstitutional – whether considered under Congress’ commerce power or taxing power:

Petitioners are trying to defend a provision in an act passed by Congress that exceeds its enumerated powers. Though Congress enacted this provision under the Commerce Clause, Congress’ power under the clause is not broad enough to compel Americans to engage in commerce by purchasing a particular product. Though Petitioners try to rescue the provision by arguing that it is valid under Congress’ taxing power even if it is invalid under Congress’ commerce power, a provision of an act that is not a tax may not be construed as a tax merely to save it from being declared unconstitutional.

Judicial Watch further argued that if the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the individual mandate, “it must be willing to hold that Congress’ powers under the Commerce clause are plenary and unlimited, for there remains no principled way to limit Congress’ power if it is stretched as far as Petitioners (the Obama administration) ask.”

Judicial Watch also uncovered documents detailing Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s role in Obamacare discussions when she served as President Obama’s Solicitor General.

Your Privacy Is Yours | Whiskey & Gunpowder

“I Lived. I Died. Now Mind Your Own Business.” That’s how I want my tombstone to read.

What do I have to hide? Everything! Which is to say, every piece of personal information someone or something demands to know is something I don’t want to tell because no one has the right to demand access to my life.

The right to privacy rests largely on a presumption of innocence. It assumes that — in the absence of evidence of wrongdoing — an individual has a right to shut his front door and tell other people (including government) to mind their own business.

Only the voters can save America now. Washington has broken with concept of self-governance | WT

The Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling on Thursday cuts right to the very fabric of the relationship between a once-limited government and a once-free citizen, but the eternal struggle between liberty and tyranny endures. It is a beginning, not an end.

As enormously important as the high court’s Obamacare ruling is – and it’s huge – it’s not the final word. The legal and political dust has not yet settled, and it will take some time for the unpredictable ripples to form the powerful waves of history. Yet, history waits for no man, so we begin by asking: What now?

Anything The Government Gives You, The Government Can Take Away | ZeroHedge

And that’s the trouble with services and institutions run from the taxpayer’s purse, administered by centralists and bureaucrats. It becomes a carrot or a stick for interventionists to intervene in your life.  Its delivery depends on your compliance with the diktats and whims of the democracy, or of bureaucrats. Your standard of living becomes a bargaining chip. Don’t conform? You might be deemed unworthy of hospital treatment. …  With the wide expansion of welfare comes a lot of power, and the potential for the abuse of power.  Citizens looking for a free lunch or an easier world should be careful what they wish for.

Welfare recipients take note: you depend on government for your standard of living, you open yourself up to losing your liberty. via ZeroHedge.

This Is How Screwed Up Our Concept of Health “Insurance” Has Become | CoyoteBlog

“…In a reasonably sane world, and in all other contexts outside of health care, insurance is obtained at relatively low prices to cover only catastrophic events that would be potentially bankrupting.  Car insurance does not cover oil changes and home insurance does not cover oven repairs.  So why is it that Drum is arguing that we should ban insurance policies that only cover catastrophic losses and not routine costs?   …

Massive $17 Trillion Hole Found In Obamacare | Zerohedge

“Two years ago, when introducing then promptly enacting Obamacare, the president stated that healthcare law reform would not cost a penny over $1 trillion ($900 billion to be precise), and that it would not add ‘one dime’ to the debt. It appears that this estimate may have been slightly optimistic… by a factor of 1700%...”  go here  ZeroHedge

Kagan Must Recuse Herself from Obamacare Case | National Review Online

According to Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, justices must disqualify themselves in cases where they have “served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.” In United States v. Gipson, the Tenth Circuit held that judges must recuse themselves if they have “previously taken a part, albeit small, in the investigation, preparation, or prosecution of a case.”

 By Sen. Jeff Sessions – Bench Memos – National Review Online.

Paul Mooney blows past Rush Limbaugh at Mach 5.7. Shockwave creates atmospheric double standard | Grey Enigma

RANT WARNING:  So, I admit that I find comedian Paul Mooney funny, just as I admit that i occasionally listen to Rush Limbaugh if I am driving.  I caught little snippets last week of the faux controversy whereby Rush supposedly called Sex Addicted, but Impoverished, Ms, Fluke a “slut” .. an apropos epithet that seems to have caused Limbaugh advertiser Sleep Number Bed to leave him as quickly as Ms. Fluke reportedly gets into hers.

OK, whatever, anything to paint our Vicodin chewing, bombastic captain as negatively as possible as often as possible, even though we are told he is irrelevant. I get it.

(Then, BTW, traumatized by the fact that the Ms. Fluke – reportedly a 30 year old activist and therefore either a really stupid or lazy ‘college student’ who perhaps should spend more time studying than screwing – was called a nasty name by someone he should care less about, our President was forced into contemplation of his daughters for some weird reason. BHO then reportedly felt compelled to call Ms. Fluke and express support for her sex life. WTF?! A little creepy there BHO…)

Do not lose sight of the foundational issues here, i.e. those whereby the Federal Government seeks to abrogate 1st Amendment rights on freedom of religion (and, arguably, establishment of a government religion) and also seeks to force the individual into a collectivist and coerced system of health care purchasing for which the Federal Government has no power.  The shadow diversion issues of “sexism”, “gender-ism”, “class-ism”, “racism”, “social justice”  and all the other divisive “-isms” are just another dose of the incessant smoke screen we are faced with as our society, culture, rights and economy are devalued, changed or stolen outright.

But, even the dumbest among us (like me) can see a crushing double standard in the smokescreen of the faux issues.  OK, Rush Limbaugh calls some narcissistic, messianic sex-fiend a slut when she comes to us – hand out – expecting us to pay for her free condoms and dental-dams while she is enrolled in a Catholic College, replete with moral restrictions, of her own choosing.  Not only is she reasonably called a slut, but a stupid and entitled slut at that. (My words, not Rush’s.)

Now compare that considered opinion, to this stream of sexist, racist, unsolicited bile – although funny – from comedian, Obama supporter and stanchion of the left Paul Mooney, and ask yourself where is the outcry against HBO for airing these opinions?

I.e. forward to 2:39 into the clip as Paul opines on Sarah palin (who as far as i know pays for her own condoms.)

FOUL LANGUAGE WARNING. You’ve been advised. Deal.

…

Updated 3/12/2012 – go here for another’s take at NRO written by my beloved Mark Steyn

Rant warning re “Does Reproductive Freedom Imply a Right to Free Birth Control? | Reason Magazine

RANT WARNING: I am so over this faux controversy, this conflation of “wants” with “needs”, “privileges” with “rights”, “health” with “behaviors”.  On the one hand this nonsensical issue is so illuminating of the poverty of the left / Obama / Obamacare / Socialism premises. On the other this is a painful distraction from real or truthful regarding things such as:

• The role of the Federal Government in personal needs and wants;
• Duties of others to meet needs and wants of the some;
• The constitutional constraints on Executive authority;
• The spinelessness of the Legislative branch;
• The reproach-ability of the Judicial branch (coming soon?);
• The long ignored overpopulation issue (wonder what Paul Ehrlich thinks of this state of affairs?);
• The recent synonymy of “pregnancy” with “disease”;
• The implied misanthropy and human-hating premise of the left and this contraception policy;
• The apparent supplanting of some non-existent ‘birth control debate’ for the ‘abortion debate” which has devolved into an electoral non-starter on which progressives have traditionally relied;
• How this relates to Obama’s low approval ratings among women and the coming election;

My head will burst if I think about this any more…Thank you Rush Limbaugh BTW.

via Reason Magazine… Supporters of Obama’s birth control rule conflate liberty with subsidies, insisting that you are not really free to do something (in this case, use contraceptives) unless it’s free. According to this logic, observant Jews do not have religious freedom unless the government pays for their kosher food, bloggers do not have freedom of speech unless taxpayers buy them computers, and Americans in general do not have a right to keep and bear arms if they have to pay for guns with their own money. By contrast, the religious institutions that object to the contraceptive mandate are not asking for subsidies; they are resisting them. They object to a regulation that forces them to pay for products and services they consider immoral. They want the freedom to offer their employees health plans that do not cover contraception and sterilization…

Fox Presses White House on Religious Freedom Controversy; Will Big Three Cover? | NewsBusters.org

Fox News’s Ed Henry challenged White House Press Secretary Jay Carney during a Tuesday briefing over the growing controversy surrounding the Obama administration’s move on January 20 to force most employers to cover sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraceptives in their health care policies without co-pay. This new federal mandate would force Catholic institutions, like hospitals and schools, to decide whether to obey it or follow the Church’s teachings against contraception.

Anchor Megyn Kelly trumpeted that “this is turning into a big deal, and the White House… [is] saying they believe they have struck the appropriate balance…the Catholic Church…saying, how is it the appropriate balance to delay…the time at which we’d have to violate our consciences?”

via Fox  NewsBusters.org.

Judge Blocks Release of Recusal-Related Emails Kagan Sent WH —Says They’re ‘Personal’ | CNSnews.com

Judge Blocks Release of Recusal-Related Emails Kagan Sent WH—Says They’re ‘Personal’ | CNSnews.com.

 

 

(CNSNews.com) – U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, a Clinton appointee, has ruled that the Justice Department does not need to release emails Solicitor General Elena Kagan sent from her DOJ email account to people in the White House—in which she discussed her recusal decisions as solicitor general—because the emails were “used for a purely personal objective.”